User:Drbogdan/sandbox-GenericObjectsOfDarkEnergy

ALSO SEE => SUBPAGES

ARCHIVES - August 1, 2021
https://archive.ph/wip/7jNT4

https://archive.ph/wip/s5dk0

https://archive.st/archive/2021/8/en.wikipedia.org/bnv8/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_object_of_dark_energy.html

https://archive.st/bnv8

https://archive.st/archive/2021/8/en.wikipedia.org/w3ap/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generic_object_of_dark_energy.html

https://archive.st/w3ap

https://web.archive.org/web/20210801210235/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_object_of_dark_energy

https://web.archive.org/web/20210801210353/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generic_object_of_dark_energy

Article Version - August 1, 2021

 * Related AfD Discussion (August 1, 2021) - Closed as DELETE - concept no longer notable (August 9, 2021)

Generic object of dark energy (also known as GEODE and GEODEs) refers to a class of non-singular theoretical objects that mimic black holes, but with dark energy interiors instead. They have been hypothesized to result from the collapse of very large stars by Leningrad physicist Erast Gliner at the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in 1966. Such GEODEs appear to be black holes when viewed from afar but, different from black holes, these objects contain dark energy instead of a gravitational singularity.

Contrary to classical black holes, GEODEs may intrinsically gain mass via the same relativistic effect responsible for the photon redshift. This results in a blueshift, which supplements and amplifies any mass gained through typical accretion processes.

If the theorized GEODEs exist, then the expansion effect we attribute to dark energy could instead be an effect that we'd be able to attribute to this hypothetical species of black holes. As of now, they remain speculative with no supporting evidence. The widely accepted, standard model of cosmology, postulates that dark energy is an inherent and constant property of spacetime, that would result in an eventual cold death of the universe.

Examples of GEODEs
The following are a few hypothesized objects that are examples of GEODEs:
 * Cosmologically embedded point-mass – proposed by George C. McVittie in 1933, this solution is one of the few known spherically symmetric strong solutions with realistic asymptotic behavior.
 * Dark-energy star – proposed in 1980 by Robert B. Laughlin and George Chapline Jr. that the surface of a dark energy star actually represents a quantum critical transition of a superfluid vacuum.
 * De-Sitter sphere – The simplest example of a GEODE is the De-Sitter sphere, first proposed by E.B. Gliner in 1966, as a non-singular end stage of stellar gravitational collapse.
 * Gravastar – formed in the limit of a radially decreasing sequence of Schwarzschild constant density spheres, such thin-shell GEODEs are stable to rotations and perturbations.
 * Vacuum bubble – This is an example of a GEODE that is not formed from a gravitational collapse, and describes an isolated region of energized vacuum.

Stability
Dark energy objects are counter-intuitive and are not suspected to exist by mainstream scientists. Some researchers have proposed models of stable configurations of dark energy stars. However, more research needs to be done to understand the nature and general properties of such compact objects.

Detection
Despite theoretical basis for dark energy objects there has been no observational support of a GEODE scenario. A few scientists suggest that the ringdown from the merger of a binary black hole can be analysed to differentiate between a conventional black hole and a GEODE.

Implications for black hole size
The GEODE blueshift naturally produces the large masses observed in binary black hole mergers. Further, blueshift induces an adiabatic inspiral of Keplerian orbits that allows capture of wider binaries.

Additionally, some classes of GEODEs can grow by factors of ∼100× by redshift $z ∼ 7$. This can relieve tension between the observed masses of supermassive black holes in quasars at high redshift and their modeled formation timescales.

Implications for dark energy
According to researchers, if a small number of the oldest stars (Population III stars) collapsed into GEODEs, rather than black holes, their contribution, on average, would result in the uniform dark energy that is observed today. According to the researchers, "What we have shown is that if GEODEs do exist, then they can easily give rise to observed phenomena that presently lack convincing explanations. We anticipate numerous other observational consequences of a GEODE scenario, including many ways to exclude it. We’ve barely begun to scratch the surface.” GEODEs would repel each other and could be spread throughout the intergalactic medium.

Created the talk-page
Created the talk-page for the Generic object of dark energy article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Why are you writing these stuff about non-notable noble concepts with the auto-patrolled hat ?.

&#x222F; WBG converse 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your cmt - not clear re "auto-patrolled hat" - please explain - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability
FWIW - seems "Notability" of the "Generic object of dark energy" article may be an issue - apparently, the current reference listing       may not be sufficient - if possible, other additional references, from secondary "WP:RS", would be welcome - (Possible Google Searches: 1 / 2 / 3) - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There really is no notability for this acronym or for this topic, and I would argue that this article should be deleted. Please resist the temptation to create a Wikipedia article for any random press release that comes along, unless there really is some useful evidence for scientific notability beyond that press release itself. The sources here are basically a couple of published papers by one group (which have zero independent citations so far), a press release by that group's institution which publicized the new paper (a press release by one's own institution is not an independent source), and then news releases on other sites that just carry or repeat the university press release. That's about it. There is no evidence yet that the ideas presented in this new paper are being further studied or taken seriously by any other research groups or that the hypothesis has had any broader level of influence in astrophysics or cosmology. The idea that the M87 black hole in particular is one of these objects is just rampant speculation, and for a WP article to state that M87* might be a "GEODE" does a real disservice to the scientific consensus. If this idea pans out in the future then there will be a growing body of scientific work and citations to the relevant papers. Until that happens, there should not be a Wikipedia article on this topic. Aldebarium (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for your *Excellent* comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - and understood - should note that many, although perhaps not all, articles that I created in a similar fashion seemed to pan out ok (esp "Apidima Cave", "Archicebus", "AT2018cow", "Denny (hybrid hominin)", "Genius (American TV series)", "Hachimoji DNA", "Human Genome Project - Write", "List of gravitational wave observations", "Lulu and Nana controversy", "MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", "Pentecopterus", "Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua", and more) - perhaps other editors may (or may not) agree with your comments in this particular instance (i.e., "Generic object of dark energy") - in any case - Comments from other editors Welcome - and - Thanks again for your comments. Drbogdan (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello- thanks for your note and I do appreciate your very extensive WP contributions. In this case, compared with another astronomical article like AT2018cow, there's a big difference in that AT2018cow is an actual thing that was discovered and actually exists in our universe, and it was pretty immediately obvious shortly after discovery that it was an unusual and interesting event, and it very quickly attracted a lot of follow-up attention and observations with many scientific articles written about it. I think the same is true for the other articles you listed: the subjects are all actual things that verifiably exist. In the case of this article, in contrast, the subject is an extremely speculative hypothesis in theoretical physics where there is one group that is very recently promoting the idea, and their university press office put out a press release, and there's no real evidence of notability or scientific impact beyond that. The fact that their press release mentions M87* seems like just an attempt to add some hype by trying to connect this very speculative hypothesis to this recently very famous black hole. The only reason that this story would have come to your attention in the first place is that their university press office put out a story on it, and that's not a sufficient indicator of scientific notability: university press releases are a dime a dozen (as are the secondary versions of them that get picked up and republished by services such as EurekAlert or Phys.org). Until these papers have some evidence of scientific impact (in the form of independent publications and citations by other groups), there's no need for a WP article on this topic. I don't mean to denigrate the research itself- exploring new and speculative ideas like this is what theoretical physicists do, but a hypothesis should reach a sufficient level of notability to justify its own WP article. Aldebarium (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest reply - your comments are all very well taken - and familiar to me in earlier experiences - at Wikipedia - and elsewhere - seems one of my created articles, "Subsatellite" (initially started as "Moonmoon"), may be an example of an article re a hypothetical object that later became a worthy article - even though no moon orbiting a moon has, to date, actually been discovered to support the hypothesis - nonetheless - at the moment, I'm flexible wth the issue re the "Generic object of dark energy" article - and agreeable to whatever "WP:Consensus" develops - and/or - with however the responsible scientific community responds in the reliable media - perhaps further comments from other editors - and time - would be helpful - Thanks again for your comments. Drbogdan (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * and Hello everyone, I am one of the coauthors on the ApJ paper.  While I very much appreciate the enthusiasm of Drbogdan (thank you for putting this together!), I very much agree with Aldebarium that sensationalism is not science.


 * This said, I do want to point out that "GEODE," as it states on the disambiguation page, is a "catchall" acronym for these sorts of solutions within GR (hence GEneric Object of Dark Energy). I can give a list of very many: Dymnikova's ~1992 object, Visser's thin shells (~2004), Mottola and Mazur's 2015 gravastar, Berezin's "vacuum bubbles" (1980s), and even McVittie's ~1936 object with arbitrary cosmological behaviour in the far field (though this last one is not widely recognized). While the acronym is certainly new, GEODEs have been around for a very long time within the literature.  They are are highly cited (some with 300+ citations) exact, strong-field, GR solutions that contain DE interiors.


 * I think to fully address the concerns of, a notable GEODE page should aggregate each of these solutions, in common notation, and summarize their properties. If existing wikipedia articles are present, they should be appropriately linked (e.g. the gravastar)


 * The WP article as written does contain some technical errors. As we state in the paper, and what is perhaps not so clear in the press release, is that not all GEODE models give an averaged Dark Energy contribution to the cosmological equations.  What we establish in the ApJ paper is that, within the framework of GR alone, a population of suitable GEODEs can, in principle, produce a global DE contribution.  This is the point that was not appreciated before.  Whether a specific GEODE model (e.g. Mazur's, or Dymnikova's, or Visser's, etc) does contribute in this way must be checked on a case by case basis.


 * To summarize: we do not use GEODE in the sense of some speculative object that has no known solution in GR. We use GEODE as an acronym for a wide class objects, which includes all the well-known and well-studied solutions.  I hope this helps to clarify the issues, with respect to this article on Notability.  I do not take a position either way, as I respect the WP editors as best able to judge these sorts of situations.  Kcroker (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to ask a clarification from you on Visser; you said "I can give a list of very many: Dymnikova's ~1992 object, Visser's thin shells (~2004) ..."
 * Are you referring to Black star (semiclassical gravity) or something else? Does Visser make any claims about black hole like objects that contain dark energy? J mareeswaran (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi- thanks for the clarifications, that's very helpful to understand the context. A few points & questions. Is this name/acronym "GEODE" something that you just recently coined? Is there any evidence of more widespread usage of this term beyond your own papers? If not, then I don't think it's appropriate for that to be the title of a WP article, since as a scientific term it would require some notability as a term to describe this category of solutions. Again, I think the article focuses entirely too much on results presented in a brand-new paper and press release that don't (yet) have notability, and focuses too much on highly speculative connections to LIGO and M87 that are well outside of mainstream scientific consensus on black holes. Based on what you've written, I can envision a better justification for a WP article on the general subject of this class of GR solutions, but it should be written in a more general way that describes the subject more broadly: the new paper(s) and press release shouldn't get much more than a passing mention at this stage. Alternatively, perhaps a better approach would be to just add a short sentence or two to the gravastar article (or other related articles) to make these connections, but focused on the overall class of solutions rather than on the recent press release. Aldebarium (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the article and this discussion, I agree with Aldebarium that more secondary sources are needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Current citations are largely primary sources.  If more secondary sources cannot be found within a reasonable time, a good case exists for a WP:AfD discussion.  Thanks to  Kcroker for responding to concerns raised about the article in a detached and helpful way.  How long should we wait for sources reporting on this from the physics community in general before taking further action regarding the article?   --loupgarous (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding additional links to low-grade news aggregator sites that rehash the press release does not give evidence for notability, especially when you include links to sites that specialize in promoting pseudoscience. Doing this just makes the article even worse, and underscores my point that there is no actual sufficient notability for this topic to have its own article. Please try to be more discerning in your quest for reliable sources. Aldebarium (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce any of my added refs and/or edits - esp in order to improve the article of course - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comment. Drbogdan (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Potentially relevant for notability: https://scienmag.com/are-black-holes-made-of-dark-energy/ --98.150.156.120 (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible merge
I suggest that this article be merged with the article Dark-energy star. Jmc76 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read the discussion above by Kcroker, especially:"'The WP article as written does contain some technical errors. As we state in the paper, and what is perhaps not so clear in the press release, is that not all GEODE models give an averaged Dark Energy contribution to the cosmological equations. What we establish in the ApJ paper is that, within the framework of GR alone, a population of suitable GEODEs can, in principle, produce a global DE contribution. This is the point that was not appreciated before. Whether a specific GEODE model (e.g. Mazur's, or Dymnikova's, or Visser's, etc) does contribute in this way must be checked on a case by case basis.'"Kcroker explained that Dark-energy stars are just one possible class of GEODE.  Perhaps any material and citations in this article specifically dealing with dark-energy stars could be moved to our article Dark-energy star.  --loupgarous (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What is this?
J mareeswaran (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What is a GEODE in simple physics terms ?
 * How is it different from a dark-energy star or a gravastar ?
 * Are there any other GEODEs other than dark-energy stars & gravastars?


 * In one of the papers Krocker et all refer to a de-sitter sphere. What is it?
 * "The isolated de-Sitter sphere is the simplest model of a GEneric Object of Dark Energy (GEODE). Such objects, like the solution of Dymnikova (1992) or the gravastar of Mazur & Mottola (2015), have been proposed as possible BH replacements"


 * Dymnikova refers to Vacuum non-singular black hole. . How is this different from gravastar or dark-energy star ?
 * "The spherically symmetric vacuum stress-energy tensor with one assumption concerning its specific form generates the exact analytic solution of the Einstein equations which for larger coincides with the Schwarzschild solution, for smallr behaves like the de Sitter solution and describes a spherically symmetric black hole singularity free everywhere."

J mareeswaran (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Observations" section deleted?
FWIW - Seems the "Observations" section (see copy below) of the main Generic object of dark energy article has now been deleted - this may have been indicated - however - other editors may wish to comment nevertheless - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)



Copied from the Main Article (version 16:41, 6 October 2019)

-- Observations -- Researchers noted that the gravitational waves observed by the LIGO-Virgo collaboration in 2016 may be better understood as occurring between double GEODE collisions, instead of double black hole collisions, since the resulting GEODE masses would be up to 8 times larger with double GEODEs, approximately in agreement with the actual observed values. A possible GEODE may be the supermassive compact object at the center of the M87 galaxy, named Powehi.

Original Test Article
MAIN ARTICLE => Generic object of dark energy (GEODE)

Generic Objects of Dark Energy (also known as GEODE and GEODEs) has been hypothesized as the result of the collapse of very large stars by Leningrad physicist Erast Gliner at the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in 1966. Such GEODEs appear to be black holes when viewed from afar but, different from black holes, these objects contain dark energy instead of a gravitational singularity. According to researchers, if a small number of the oldest stars collapsed into GEODEs, rather than black holes, their contribution, on average, would result in the uniform Dark Energy that is observed today. In addition, researchers noted that the gravitational waves observed by the LIGO-Virgo collaboration in 2016 may be better understood as occurring between double GEODE collisions, instead of double black hole collisions, since the resulting GEODE masses would be up to 8 times larger with double GEODEs, approximately in agreement with the actual observed values. A possible GEODE may be the supermassive compact object at the center of the M87 galaxy, named Powehi.

--See also--
 * First observation of gravitational waves
 * Gravitational wave
 * List of gravitational wave observations

--References--

--External links--
 * Dark energy: FAQ
 * Dark energy: studies at CERN
 * Dark energy: overview (2006) The New York Times
 * Dark energy: how the paradigm shifted Physicsworld.com
 * Dark energy Eric Linder Scholarpedia 3(2):4900.

Category:Energy (physics) Category:Physical cosmology Category:Unsolved problems in astronomy Category:Unsolved problems in physics

--Talk-page--

--Created the talk-page-- Created the talk-page for the Generic Objects of Dark Energy article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent Test Article (a/o 09/16/2019)
Generic object of dark energy (also known as GEODE and GEODEs) has been hypothesized to result from the collapse of very large stars by Leningrad physicist Erast Gliner at the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in 1966. Such GEODEs appear to be black holes when viewed from afar but, different from black holes, these objects contain dark energy instead of a gravitational singularity. According to researchers, if a small number of the oldest stars collapsed into GEODEs, rather than black holes, their contribution, on average, would result in the uniform Dark Energy that is observed today. In addition, researchers noted that the gravitational waves observed by the LIGO-Virgo collaboration in 2016 may be better understood as occurring between double GEODE collisions, instead of double black hole collisions, since the resulting GEODE masses would be up to 8 times larger with double GEODEs, approximately in agreement with the actual observed values. A possible GEODE may be the supermassive compact object at the center of the M87 galaxy, named Powehi. According to the researchers, "What we have shown is that if GEODEs do exist, then they can easily give rise to observed phenomena that presently lack convincing explanations."

--See also--


 * Dark-energy star
 * First observation of gravitational waves
 * Gravastar
 * Gravitational wave
 * List of gravitational wave observations

--References--

Category:Energy (physics) Category:Physical cosmology Category:Unsolved problems in astronomy Category:Unsolved problems in physics

--Recent Talk-page (a/o 09/16/2019)--

--Created the talk-page--

Created the talk-page for the Generic object of dark energy article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

--Feedback from New Page Review process--

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Why are you writing these stuff about non-notable noble concepts with the auto-patrolled hat ?. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your cmt - not clear re "auto-patrolled hat" - please explain - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

--Notability--

FWIW - seems "Notability" of the "Generic object of dark energy" article may be an issue - apparently, the current reference listing      may not be sufficient - if possible, other additional references, from secondary "WP:RS", would be welcome - (Possible Google Searches: 1 / 2 / 3) - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There really is no notability for this acronym or for this topic, and I would argue that this article should be deleted. Please resist the temptation to create a Wikipedia article for any random press release that comes along, unless there really is some useful evidence for scientific notability beyond that press release itself. The sources here are basically a couple of published papers by one group (which have zero independent citations so far), a press release by that group's institution which publicized the new paper (a press release by one's own institution is not an independent source), and then news releases on other sites that just carry or repeat the university press release. That's about it. There is no evidence yet that the ideas presented in this new paper are being further studied or taken seriously by any other research groups or that the hypothesis has had any broader level of influence in astrophysics or cosmology. The idea that the M87 black hole in particular is one of these objects is just rampant speculation, and for a WP article to state that M87* might be a "GEODE" does a real disservice to the scientific consensus. If this idea pans out in the future then there will be a growing body of scientific work and citations to the relevant papers. Until that happens, there should not be a Wikipedia article on this topic. Aldebarium (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for your *Excellent* comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - and understood - should note that many, although perhaps not all, articles that I created in a similar fashion seemed to pan out ok (esp "Apidima Cave", "Archicebus", "AT2018cow", "Denny (hybrid hominin)", "Genius (American TV series)", "Hachimoji DNA", "Human Genome Project - Write", "List of gravitational wave observations", "Lulu and Nana controversy", "MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", "Pentecopterus", "Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua", and more) - perhaps other editors may (or may not) agree with your comments in this particular instance (i.e., "Generic object of dark energy") - in any case - Comments from other editors Welcome - and - Thanks again for your comments. Drbogdan (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello- thanks for your note and I do appreciate your very extensive WP contributions. In this case, compared with another astronomical article like AT2018cow, there's a big difference in that AT2018cow is an actual thing that was discovered and actually exists in our universe, and it was pretty immediately obvious shortly after discovery that it was an unusual and interesting event, and it very quickly attracted a lot of follow-up attention and observations with many scientific articles written about it. I think the same is true for the other articles you listed: the subjects are all actual things that verifiably exist. In the case of this article, in contrast, the subject is an extremely speculative hypothesis in theoretical physics where there is one group that is very recently promoting the idea, and their university press office put out a press release, and there's no real evidence of notability or scientific impact beyond that. The fact that their press release mentions M87* seems like just an attempt to add some hype by trying to connect this very speculative hypothesis to this recently very famous black hole. The only reason that this story would have come to your attention in the first place is that their university press office put out a story on it, and that's not a sufficient indicator of scientific notability: university press releases are a dime a dozen (as are the secondary versions of them that get picked up and republished by services such as EurekAlert or Phys.org). Until these papers have some evidence of scientific impact (in the form of independent publications and citations by other groups), there's no need for a WP article on this topic. I don't mean to denigrate the research itself- exploring new and speculative ideas like this is what theoretical physicists do, but a hypothesis should reach a sufficient level of notability to justify its own WP article. Aldebarium (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest reply - your comments are all very well taken - and familiar to me in earlier experiences - at Wikipedia - and elsewhere - seems one of my created articles, "Subsatellite" (initially started as "Moonmoon"), may be an example of an article re a hypothetical object that later became a worthy article - even though no moon orbiting a moon has, to date, actually been discovered to support the hypothesis - nonetheless - at the moment, I'm flexible wth the issue re the "Generic object of dark energy" article - and agreeable to whatever "WP:Consensus" develops - and/or - with however the responsible scientific community responds in the reliable media - perhaps further comments from other editors - and time - would be helpful - Thanks again for your comments. Drbogdan (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and Hello everyone, I am one of the coauthors on the ApJ paper.  While I very much appreciate the enthusiasm of Drbogdan (thank you for putting this together!), I very much agree with Aldebarium that sensationalism is not science.
 * This said, I do want to point out that "GEODE," as it states on the disambiguation page, is a "catchall" acronym for these sorts of solutions within GR (hence GEneric Object of Dark Energy). I can give a list of very many: Dymnikova's ~1992 object, Visser's thin shells (~2004), Mottola and Mazur's 2015 gravastar, Berezin's "vacuum bubbles" (1980s), and even McVittie's ~1936 object with arbitrary cosmological behaviour in the far field (though this last one is not widely recognized). While the acronym is certainly new, GEODEs have been around for a very long time within the literature.  They are are highly cited (some with 300+ citations) exact, strong-field, GR solutions that contain DE interiors.
 * I think to fully address the concerns of, a notable GEODE page should aggregate each of these solutions, in common notation, and summarize their properties. If existing wikipedia articles are present, they should be appropriately linked (e.g. the gravastar)
 * The WP article as written does contain some technical errors. As we state in the paper, and what is perhaps not so clear in the press release, is that not all GEODE models give an averaged Dark Energy contribution to the cosmological equations.  What we establish in the ApJ paper is that, within the framework of GR alone, a population of suitable GEODEs can, in principle, produce a global DE contribution.  This is the point that was not appreciated before.  Whether a specific GEODE model (e.g. Mazur's, or Dymnikova's, or Visser's, etc) does contribute in this way must be checked on a case by case basis.
 * To summarize: we do not use GEODE in the sense of some speculative object that has no known solution in GR. We use GEODE as an acronym for a wide class objects, which includes all the well-known and well-studied solutions.  I hope this helps to clarify the issues, with respect to this article on Notability.  I do not take a position either way, as I respect the WP editors as best able to judge these sorts of situations.  Kcroker (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi- thanks for the clarifications, that's very helpful to understand the context. A few points & questions. Is this name/acronym "GEODE" something that you just recently coined? Is there any evidence of more widespread usage of this term beyond your own papers? If not, then I don't think it's appropriate for that to be the title of a WP article, since as a scientific term it would require some notability as a term to describe this category of solutions. Again, I think the article focuses entirely too much on results presented in a brand-new paper and press release that don't (yet) have notability, and focuses too much on highly speculative connections to LIGO and M87 that are well outside of mainstream scientific consensus on black holes. Based on what you've written, I can envision a better justification for a WP article on the general subject of this class of GR solutions, but it should be written in a more general way that describes the subject more broadly: the new paper(s) and press release shouldn't get much more than a passing mention at this stage. Alternatively, perhaps a better approach would be to just add a short sentence or two to the gravastar article (or other related articles) to make these connections, but focused on the overall class of solutions rather than on the recent press release. Aldebarium (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the article and this discussion, I agree with Aldebarium that more secondary sources are needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Current citations are largely primary sources.  If more secondary sources cannot be found within a reasonable time, a good case exists for a WP:AfD discussion.  Thanks to  Kcroker for responding to concerns raised about the article in a detached and helpful way.  How long should we wait for sources reporting on this from the physics community in general before taking further action regarding the article?   --loupgarous (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding additional links to low-grade news aggregator sites that rehash the press release does not give evidence for notability, especially when you include links to sites that specialize in promoting pseudoscience. Doing this just makes the article even worse, and underscores my point that there is no actual sufficient notability for this topic to have its own article. Please try to be more discerning in your quest for reliable sources. Aldebarium (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce any of my added refs and/or edits - esp in order to improve the article of course - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comment. Drbogdan (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

--Possible merge--

I suggest that this article be merged with the article Dark-energy star. Jmc76 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion above by Kcroker, especially:"'The WP article as written does contain some technical errors. As we state in the paper, and what is perhaps not so clear in the press release, is that not all GEODE models give an averaged Dark Energy contribution to the cosmological equations. What we establish in the ApJ paper is that, within the framework of GR alone, a population of suitable GEODEs can, in principle, produce a global DE contribution. This is the point that was not appreciated before. Whether a specific GEODE model (e.g. Mazur's, or Dymnikova's, or Visser's, etc) does contribute in this way must be checked on a case by case basis.'"Kcroker explained that Dark-energy stars are just one possible class of GEODE.  Perhaps any material and citations in this article specifically dealing with dark-energy stars could be moved to our article Dark-energy star.  --loupgarous (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)